'I had a project manager once who had a saying: "If it didn't happen twice, then it didn't happen once."'
Was he a zen monk? If you follow that philosophy then all occurances are first occurances and therefore never happen, causing the next occurance to again be the first.
You live in a world where good people outnumber bad people? Granted there are probably less on any given flight who are trying to takeover the plane than not, but most people are NOT good people.
P.S. What is a peace officer? If you mean a police officier, they tend to top the bad people list.
Has anyone investigated the possibility for using bittorrent exploits to utilize peers as a zombie network for dos attacks and such? The bandwidth is massive and the pcs are already willfully connected together...
Copyright law explicitly allows resale. I have every right to sell you my copy of Office, and I have every right to sell you my copy of MacOS, neither Microsoft nor Apple have any say in the matter.
Ok, please re-read my post, the part about there being a number of open CPU archs and that it is the platform that is open. And btw, there have been so many x86 processor clones it is not even funny. There is more to being IBM-PC compatible than the processor exclusively.
"Second, there is more to your OS than your raw controller layer and kernel, regardless of what linux folks want to tell you."
No there is not. That is what an operating system is by definition. People who program things other than operating systems expanding the idea to be a usable system for THEM and included C libraries and started debating on whether it included pieces on top of that and end users later mistaking thought it was the portion that provided the foundation for THEM. The operating system is the lowest level layer to the hardware, even the C libraries must go through the kernel (at least on a properly designed operating system). The other applications and libraries bundled with the kernel to provide a foundation someone can work with constitute a minimal DISTRIBUTION, not an operating system.
"And that "pretty gui" represents ground-breaking work in usability. Not all of it is perfect, yet, but they're getting there. It's also usable from a programmer's point of view."
Your point? Or did you just feel like ranting about how great you think their gui and the portions they wrote to support their gui are? There is nothing in your entire post that contradicts my point that the only thing of signficance left to Apple as a HARDWARE vendor is the CPU.
Much as I appreciate your rant, I already clearly indicated that I thought Apple had done some nice software work and that they should wake up and realize that it is software that they do well.
"Simply waving your hand and saying, "Ahh, they didn't design anything" is grossly inaccurate."
Good thing I never said that, you did. I simply did not praise and worship them enough for your taste.
" Well, that "Pretty GUI" allows me to run Photoshop."
You can run Photoshop on every major platform.
"Let me know when linux can run Photoshop"
Linux can run the Win32 version of Photoshop.
"Unfortunately, that's a long way off."
No actually, you've been able to run Photoshop on Linux for a couple years now. Disney needed to run Photoshop before they could move all their desktops to Linux, so they paid some programmers $50,000 to port it.
"I'm all about function over form, but if you can have both, then great!"
That sounds great until you realize there is no such thing as both, every single animation and highlight degrades performance.
Honestly, if a pretty gui is your thing then go for it. My complaint is that Macs used to justify the high price tag, they used to have excellent hardware and a slow crappy OS that was useless to all but least advanced user. Now they have a much better OS but the part that makes it superior is already open source, and aside from the processor, the hardware is basically the same cheap crap you get in an x86 pc.
If you want an x86 mac you can get almost the same thing now by purchasing a vaio. It is basically what you could get from another pc vendor for $400 at $1200-$3000 with some housebrand media software on it.
"As long as Apple can stop people from reselling computers with OSX pre-installed, they'll still maintain their ability to charge people who use Macs. Sure, you can say Apple makes money off hardware and Microsoft makes money off software, but when most of the people buying Windows are getting it bundled with the hardware anyway, is there really a difference?"
Apple can not do that anymore than anyone else can, the law explicitly prohibits it.
last I checked RISC processors have a pretty similar instruction set and the translation required was minimal. So far NOBODY has managed to a decent RISC to CISC translation.
He said "make" webpages, not get the webpages they make hosted. Internet publishing is not the same as 'webpages' either, the internet predates the web but webpages do not.
I would have to disagree with you on the PowerPC chip, it uses less juice, runs cooler, and outperforms x86 chips.
"In every respect except the CPU, this is already true. Back in the 80s, Apple designed superior computers, but now Macs are just collections of commodity PC parts, and often quite low-end ones at that."
True enough, but even back in the 80's there was this little company called Commadore... Someday apple will figure out that the only reason people buy their hardware is because of their easy to use software and adjust their business model accordingly.
What part did Apple design again? Wasn't the processor, that belongs to IBM. Apple certainly did not invent the PCI bus, memory modules, periphials, hard drives, drive controllers, drive interfaces, or io interfaces. True they slapped all of this designed by others stuff together on a circuit board but they did not design any of it. They did some nice firmware work, that much I will give them.
The only thing in the box that does not come off a commodity IBM-PC component assembly line is the processor (and the mb that glues the above mentioned technologies together). You say the hardware design is fabulous, I say it was fabulous circa late 1980's when macs were macs and ibm-pc were ibm-pc's.
"a remarkably stable and well thought out OS"
That has little or nothing to do with Apple either. It is a Mach OS, with BSD filling in the blanks to get a usable system. Apple did create the pretty gui I referred to though.
"and excellent (sometimes unrivalled) media software are the Mac's edge"
There is excellent media software for every platform but you hit another excellent point. Apple makes excellent software, they always have. That is where apple should concentrate. Even the early macs were Amiga as much as Apple. 99% of the mac is a pc already, change the last 1%, open source OS X and start selling Media software and other tidbits to enhance it.
"Not true. Apple has two edges. (1) Complete control of hardware and operating system. (2) Mac OS X. Neither of these are PowerPC dependent."
I said hardware, OS X is software. That was the pretty gui running on top of BSD part I mentioned. On the hardware side, Apple already uses IBM-PC commodity parts for everything but the CPU. Even the Apple branded stuff is commodity pc hardware that is rebranded. Lets look at the parts list from the hardware side.
x86 processor (if they change) standard pci (and AGP) bus commodity ram ide/sata drives and connections
All the hardware interfaces would be 100% compatible with a pc. Even if Apple shipped custom firmware to restrict hardware used with the platform it would be trivial to reflash. Nope, once they go x86 Apple has no more firm a grip on the hardware than any other pc vendor.
Even if the firmware restriction would be such a blatant price gouge that all but the worst Apple apologists would be outraged.
If you read PC as IBM-PC Compatible... not until they change the CPU.
Everything else is the same, drives, bus, memory, periphials, io ports, etc. But the processor is not the standard commodity part found in systems that cost half as much and it also needs to use the x86 instruction set (and of course the chipset/firmware to go with that change).
They are seperate issues. Open is more important than technical superiority, technical superiority is seperate and unrelated to openness.
A closed architecture sucks because it can be used to produce vendor lockin and prevent innovation and progress. If a closed platform offers something you can not live without then so be it, but if there is a choice an inferior open platform that can improve is superior to a closed platform that is technically superior today.
The x86 is a shitty architecture from a technical standpoint for a number of reasons, but its openness is ideal. An open platform (there are actually a number of fairly open cpu archs) is more important than technical superiority. That is why 90% of the market is using the technically poor x86 arch and platform.
If the Ferarri has replaced every other component in their car with Taurus parts then yes. First the bus, then the hard drives, video cards, usb, and... the processor is the only thing that makes a Mac a Mac and not a pc.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this the deadline for compliance or for submitting a proposal that would hopefully eventually result in compliance?
No. Ham operators are specially licensed. Ham radio bands are not open to the general public like CB.
Hardly, hams already kiss the FCC's tail in order to keep a huge chunk of the spectrum out of public hands and in their own.
Arguably, the world would be a very different and much improved place if they did.
'I had a project manager once who had a saying: "If it didn't happen twice, then it didn't happen once."'
Was he a zen monk? If you follow that philosophy then all occurances are first occurances and therefore never happen, causing the next occurance to again be the first.
The sad thing is that if everyone took your recommendation then nobody would understand the things they find on webpages.
I suspect the reason for the cover on their previous issue AND the reputation is that hackers ARE hairy palmed, sex-starved, sad sack porno hounds.
We were talking about Apple computers not just the OS. I have every right to resell my Mac, software and all.
You live in a world where good people outnumber bad people? Granted there are probably less on any given flight who are trying to takeover the plane than not, but most people are NOT good people.
P.S. What is a peace officer? If you mean a police officier, they tend to top the bad people list.
Has anyone investigated the possibility for using bittorrent exploits to utilize peers as a zombie network for dos attacks and such? The bandwidth is massive and the pcs are already willfully connected together...
Copyright law explicitly allows resale. I have every right to sell you my copy of Office, and I have every right to sell you my copy of MacOS, neither Microsoft nor Apple have any say in the matter.
Ok, please re-read my post, the part about there being a number of open CPU archs and that it is the platform that is open. And btw, there have been so many x86 processor clones it is not even funny. There is more to being IBM-PC compatible than the processor exclusively.
"Second, there is more to your OS than your raw controller layer and kernel, regardless of what linux folks want to tell you."
No there is not. That is what an operating system is by definition. People who program things other than operating systems expanding the idea to be a usable system for THEM and included C libraries and started debating on whether it included pieces on top of that and end users later mistaking thought it was the portion that provided the foundation for THEM. The operating system is the lowest level layer to the hardware, even the C libraries must go through the kernel (at least on a properly designed operating system). The other applications and libraries bundled with the kernel to provide a foundation someone can work with constitute a minimal DISTRIBUTION, not an operating system.
"And that "pretty gui" represents ground-breaking work in usability. Not all of it is perfect, yet, but they're getting there. It's also usable from a programmer's point of view."
Your point? Or did you just feel like ranting about how great you think their gui and the portions they wrote to support their gui are? There is nothing in your entire post that contradicts my point that the only thing of signficance left to Apple as a HARDWARE vendor is the CPU.
Much as I appreciate your rant, I already clearly indicated that I thought Apple had done some nice software work and that they should wake up and realize that it is software that they do well.
"Simply waving your hand and saying, "Ahh, they didn't design anything" is grossly inaccurate."
Good thing I never said that, you did. I simply did not praise and worship them enough for your taste.
" Well, that "Pretty GUI" allows me to run Photoshop."
You can run Photoshop on every major platform.
"Let me know when linux can run Photoshop"
Linux can run the Win32 version of Photoshop.
"Unfortunately, that's a long way off."
No actually, you've been able to run Photoshop on Linux for a couple years now. Disney needed to run Photoshop before they could move all their desktops to Linux, so they paid some programmers $50,000 to port it.
"I'm all about function over form, but if you can have both, then great!"
That sounds great until you realize there is no such thing as both, every single animation and highlight degrades performance.
Honestly, if a pretty gui is your thing then go for it. My complaint is that Macs used to justify the high price tag, they used to have excellent hardware and a slow crappy OS that was useless to all but least advanced user. Now they have a much better OS but the part that makes it superior is already open source, and aside from the processor, the hardware is basically the same cheap crap you get in an x86 pc.
If you want an x86 mac you can get almost the same thing now by purchasing a vaio. It is basically what you could get from another pc vendor for $400 at $1200-$3000 with some housebrand media software on it.
"As long as Apple can stop people from reselling computers with OSX pre-installed, they'll still maintain their ability to charge people who use Macs. Sure, you can say Apple makes money off hardware and Microsoft makes money off software, but when most of the people buying Windows are getting it bundled with the hardware anyway, is there really a difference?"
Apple can not do that anymore than anyone else can, the law explicitly prohibits it.
last I checked RISC processors have a pretty similar instruction set and the translation required was minimal. So far NOBODY has managed to a decent RISC to CISC translation.
He said "make" webpages, not get the webpages they make hosted. Internet publishing is not the same as 'webpages' either, the internet predates the web but webpages do not.
What does GCC have to do with dreamweaver and/or webpage design?
I would have to disagree with you on the PowerPC chip, it uses less juice, runs cooler, and outperforms x86 chips.
"In every respect except the CPU, this is already true. Back in the 80s, Apple designed superior computers, but now Macs are just collections of commodity PC parts, and often quite low-end ones at that."
True enough, but even back in the 80's there was this little company called Commadore... Someday apple will figure out that the only reason people buy their hardware is because of their easy to use software and adjust their business model accordingly.
"Fabulous hardware design"
What part did Apple design again? Wasn't the processor, that belongs to IBM. Apple certainly did not invent the PCI bus, memory modules, periphials, hard drives, drive controllers, drive interfaces, or io interfaces. True they slapped all of this designed by others stuff together on a circuit board but they did not design any of it. They did some nice firmware work, that much I will give them.
The only thing in the box that does not come off a commodity IBM-PC component assembly line is the processor (and the mb that glues the above mentioned technologies together). You say the hardware design is fabulous, I say it was fabulous circa late 1980's when macs were macs and ibm-pc were ibm-pc's.
"a remarkably stable and well thought out OS"
That has little or nothing to do with Apple either. It is a Mach OS, with BSD filling in the blanks to get a usable system. Apple did create the pretty gui I referred to though.
"and excellent (sometimes unrivalled) media software are the Mac's edge"
There is excellent media software for every platform but you hit another excellent point. Apple makes excellent software, they always have. That is where apple should concentrate. Even the early macs were Amiga as much as Apple. 99% of the mac is a pc already, change the last 1%, open source OS X and start selling Media software and other tidbits to enhance it.
"Not true. Apple has two edges. (1) Complete control of hardware and operating system. (2) Mac OS X. Neither of these are PowerPC dependent."
I said hardware, OS X is software. That was the pretty gui running on top of BSD part I mentioned. On the hardware side, Apple already uses IBM-PC commodity parts for everything but the CPU. Even the Apple branded stuff is commodity pc hardware that is rebranded. Lets look at the parts list from the hardware side.
x86 processor (if they change)
standard pci (and AGP) bus
commodity ram
ide/sata drives and connections
All the hardware interfaces would be 100% compatible with a pc. Even if Apple shipped custom firmware to restrict hardware used with the platform it would be trivial to reflash. Nope, once they go x86 Apple has no more firm a grip on the hardware than any other pc vendor.
Even if the firmware restriction would be such a blatant price gouge that all but the worst Apple apologists would be outraged.
If you read PC as IBM-PC Compatible... not until they change the CPU.
Everything else is the same, drives, bus, memory, periphials, io ports, etc. But the processor is not the standard commodity part found in systems that cost half as much and it also needs to use the x86 instruction set (and of course the chipset/firmware to go with that change).
They are seperate issues. Open is more important than technical superiority, technical superiority is seperate and unrelated to openness.
A closed architecture sucks because it can be used to produce vendor lockin and prevent innovation and progress. If a closed platform offers something you can not live without then so be it, but if there is a choice an inferior open platform that can improve is superior to a closed platform that is technically superior today.
The x86 is a shitty architecture from a technical standpoint for a number of reasons, but its openness is ideal. An open platform (there are actually a number of fairly open cpu archs) is more important than technical superiority. That is why 90% of the market is using the technically poor x86 arch and platform.
If the Ferarri has replaced every other component in their car with Taurus parts then yes. First the bus, then the hard drives, video cards, usb, and... the processor is the only thing that makes a Mac a Mac and not a pc.
PPC and 68k are entirely different architectures with different but one way compatible instruction sets.